임녹문과 맹자

Abstract

In exploring the prominent late Joseon Confucian scholar, Nokmun Im Seongju (1711-1788), one unavoidably comes across the fact that the ‘sheng zhi wei sheng’ chapter in the Mencius had a decisive influence on Nokmun. In the debate over the sameness or difference between 'human nature' and ‘the nature of things,’ which was the hottest philosophical issue in the mid-to-late Joseon Dynasty, Nokmun originally agreed with the position of his teacher, Doam Lee Jae (1680-1746), that human nature and the natures of things are the same. The aforementioned chapter in the Mencius changed Nogmun’s mind. Given the general understanding of the chapter that Mencius try to emphasize the aspect of human nature distinct from the nature of things, Nogmun’s change of position in the Horak Debate can be easily understood. This paper aims to show that Nokmun's reading of the ‘sheng zhi wei sheng’ chapter did not merely bring about a shift from Nakron to Horon, but played a pivotal role in establishing the structure of Nokmun's monistic Neo-Confucianism. More precisely, I would like to say that Mencius's philosophy provide the basis for the development of Nokmun’s philosophy. The fact that a Confucian cannon such as the Mencius influence a Confucian scholar’s philosophical thinking may sound like tautology. However, seen from a different angle, it also means that Mencius's philosophy can be interpreted very closely to the ki-centered monistic philosophy advocated by Nokmun. Nokmun seems to have had the idea that the problem caused by the clash between the dualistic structure of Zhuxi’s philosophy and ‘monistic’ Chinese traditional worldview could be solved by returning to the monistic structure via the Mencian philosophy. This paper will examine how such an attempt appears to solve the problem of Horak Debate.